Category: Title IX

More victories from my efforts to advance civil rights and challenge systemic sexism in higher education

Post author By Deanna Brown
Post date November 14, 2020

By:  Mark J. Perry
     November 5, 2020

I was informed yesterday by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) that another of my (now) 244 complaints (probably the most ever filed by a single individual, at least for single-sex programs) alleging Title IX violations in higher education has been successfully resolved in my favor. That brings the total number of Title IX complaints to date that have been favorably resolved to 30 and there are close to 100 ongoing federal OCR investigations based on my complaints that I expect to also be successfully resolved in my favor (given the clarity of Title IX’s legal standard above and the clear and frequent violations of that law in higher education). Successful resolutions are illegal Title IX violations involving sex-specific female-only programs that are corrected with one of three outcomes: 1) the discriminatory program is discontinued, 2) the discriminatory female-only program is offset with an equivalent male-only program, or 3) the discriminatory female-only program is converted to a coeducational program open to all genders.

Here is information about the latest successful resolution of one of my Title IX complaints to the OCR:

In May 2019 I filed a Title IX complaint with the OCR against Duke University for operating three single-sex, female-only programs that illegally excluded and discriminated against male students. In August 2019, the OCR opened an investigation of Duke for violating federal civil rights laws (Title IX) for these three programs:

1. The Duke University Marine Lab has annually hosted the Girls Exploring Science & Technology (GEST) event, which as the program name indicates is a single-sex, female-only program that provided middle school girls only the opportunity to participate in hands-on science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) activities alongside female scientists working in those fields.

2. Duke’s FEMMES (Females Excelling More in Math, Engineering, and Science) as the program name indicates is a single-sex, female-only student-led education outreach organization whose mission is to engage young girls (only) in STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) fields through exciting hands-on activities and mentorship from female students and research faculty at universities. “In all components of FEMMES, female students and faculty members volunteer their time to instill enthusiasm about their careers in the developing minds of young women.” This education outreach program is discriminatory because it illegally excluded and discriminated against male students.

3. Girls STEM Day @ Duke as the program name indicates is an annual single-sex, girl only program that has taken place annually at Duke University in May for more than 100 middle and high school girls. This discriminatory program operated exclusively for girls and illegally excluded and discriminated against boys on the basis of sex against male students.

To resolve its Title IX violation, Duke University expressed an interest in voluntarily resolving the complaint before the completion of OCR’s investigation and signed a Voluntary Resolution Agreement (VRA) to address in allegations. In that VRA Duke agreed to decide by January 2021 whether it will: a) discontinue its discriminatory, single-sex, female-only programs or b) convert the female-only programs to coeducational programs open to all students and participants regardless of sex. If Duke chooses option (b) the university will also change the names of the programs “to eliminate any suggestion that they are for a single-sex and ensure that all communications related to the programs effectively communicate that the programs coeducational.” There is also an option for Duke to maintain the discriminatory names GEST and FEMMES but only if the university “can develop and implement strategies to effectively communicate to the applicable University community and the public that the programs notwithstanding their names are open to all students regardless of sex.”

From my experience, it’s easier for most universities to discontinue their illegal, discriminatory single-sex, female-only programs than to redesign them as coeducational programs open to all students including males. The programs and their supporters, staff, participants, and donors are too psychologically vested in female-only programs and it creates too much cognitive dissonance and consternation trying to get “buy-in” from key constituents to open those programs to males. The commitment to provide illegal special preferences to females usually outweighs any concern to legally provide equal educational opportunities to males, and it’s therefore easier to just discontinue and drop the discriminatory program than to include males.

And the graphic above from the current FEMMES (Females Excelling More in Math, Engineering and Science) website (see any patterns?) makes it seem like Duke hasn’t yet accepted the fact that it was just found by the OCR to be in violation of Title IX’s prohibition of sex discrimination. And it hasn’t yet accepted that the female-only FEMMES program is violating its own anti-discrimination policy (edited slightly for humor):

Duke University is committed to ensuring an environment free of prohibited discrimination, and our policies encourage an inclusive community that respects and values all of its members [except for males until we got caught].

In accordance with federal laws, Duke University does not discriminate on the basis of age, color, disability, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, national origin, race, religion, sex [except for males until we got caught], sexual orientation, or veteran status. We expand these protections further by also prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation, and gender expression [except for males until we got caught].

It’s always both amusing and disappointing that so many universities so pretentiously, pompously and yet disingenuously profess their commitment to non-discrimination while at the same time discriminating on the basis of sex so openly and brazenly??

Here are some other updates on my civil rights advocacy:

1. In October, Western Washington University entered into a Voluntary Resolution Agreement with the OCR to resolve its Title IX violation for hosting and offering the “Girls Engineering Math and Science (GEMS) Academy,” which as the name indicates was a discriminatory, single-sex, female-only program that illegally excluded boys. The university was given until November 20 to decide if it would discontinue its discriminatory girl-only program or convert it to a coeducational program open to all genders include males. Given the fact that the program website no longer works, I’ll assume the university shut the illegal program down rather than legally open it to boys. Too much cognitive dissonance, too much vested interest in girls, and not enough buy-in to include boys, see above.

2. Also in October, Oregon State University resolved the federal investigation of its Title IX violation for offering five discriminatory illegal female-only faculty awards by opening the five awards “to anyone in the OSU community who has worked to advance gender equity.” Prediction: The awards will continue to be given to female faculty, but at least male faculty will now be technically eligible to receive these awards. We’ll call this a hollow Title IX victory.

3. In the last month, the OCR has opened 11 federal investigations of civil rights (Title VI and IX) violations based on my complaints for the following universities in the last month:

a. The University of Connecticut for its Outstanding Senior Women Academic Achievement Award, the Women Of Color Collective (WOCC) Event (Title VI), and the Men’s Project, a single-sex, male-only program “to train students who identify as male to positively influence their peers by challenging social norms that promote gender-based violence; understanding their connection to survivors of gender-based violence; and role modeling effective bystander interventions.” This is my first Title IX complaint for a male-only program. However, the program is offered through the university’s Women Center, so I suspect it’s probably a program for men to address their toxicity and privilege.

b. Yale University’s School of Management for a series of illegal, discriminatory single-sex, female-only programs including Programs for Women, Women’s Leadership Program Live Online, the Women’s Leadership Program, the Women’s Leadership Program Online, and Women on Boards.

c. The University of Alabama Birmingham for six discriminatory, single-sex, female-only staff, student, and faculty awards.

d. University of Connecticut for its BOLD Women’s Leadership Network.

e. Loyola Marymount University for hosting and partnering with the girl-only Project Scientist program.

f. University of Wisconsin Madison for its discriminatory Center for the Advancement of Women in Science and Medicine.

g. University of Minnesota for its Women’s Leadership Institute and the Women In Leadership program in the Carlson School of Management.

h. SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry for its Girls’ Summit program.

i. California Institute of Technology for hosting the discriminatory Project Scientist organization.

j. Lakeland Community College (Ohio) for its Woman of Achievement Awards.

k. State University of New York Albany for a variety of 14 different single-sex, female-only scholarships, awards, centers, academies, initiatives, and programs. This is a good example of a university that has tolerated illegal sex discrimination and allowed it to spread unchecked throughout the entire university. I’m sure I haven’t yet uncovered many other civil rights violations at SUNY-Albany as an outsider reviewing its websites.

Bottom Line: A university that tolerates and promotes so much illegal sex discrimination must either not even be aware that they are violating federal civil rights laws or be aware but not care because they think it’s acceptable to discriminate against certain groups. And SUNY Albany’s not alone, they’re fairly typical of the hundreds of American universities that practice systemic sexism with impunity. So either they’re ignorant of federal laws prohibiting discrimination or they think they’re above the law. In either case, it’s a sad indictment of “higher” education.

More Victories from My Efforts to Advance Civil Rights and Challenge Systemic Sexism in Higher Education

Campus Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Students accused of non-Title IX misconduct should get fair hearings, too

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date November 12, 2020

Students accused of non-Title IX misconduct should get fair hearings, too

by Susan Kruth

November 12, 2020

Students sometimes ask why FIRE spends so much time making sure students accused of sexual misconduct receive fair hearings. They’ve noticed that over the past decade, a lot of our work has focused on the interplay between Title IX and due process. But things weren’t always this way. While FIRE has always been on the front lines of the battle to ensure students accused of misconduct are given a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves before they are punished, our biggest early due process case centered around a Facebook post about a parking garage — it had nothing to do with sexual misconduct at all. FIRE started focusing more on fundamental fairness in sexual misconduct disciplinary procedures about a decade ago, when colleges and universities, under the direction of the federal government, started throwing away procedural safeguards specifically in sexual misconduct cases and not in other cases.

Our goal is to ensure that all students facing serious punishment like long-term suspension or expulsion receive a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves.

This year, the Department of Education finally mandated that schools bound by Title IX (almost all colleges and universities nationwide) guarantee students accused of sexual misconduct under Title IX many critically important procedural safeguards to ensure they are not punished without due process. So what now?

FIRE’s goal was and is not that students accused of sexual misconduct be treated more fairly than students accused of other misconduct. Our goal is to ensure that all students facing serious punishment like long-term suspension or expulsion receive a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves, including the right to a presumption of innocence, information about the charges and the evidence against them with time to prepare before the hearing, and a live hearing with an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Federal regulations now require that students facing discipline under Title IX are afforded these protections. This is a solid advance for campus justice, but schools owe students an explanation if they’re not going to treat non-Title IX cases with the same care with which Title IX cases will be handled going forward.

To help ensure all students facing serious punishments are guaranteed fundamentally fair hearings, FIRE has written a template letter students can send to their college or university.

As suggested by the Supreme Court of the United States in Goss v. Lopez, the formality of school disciplinary procedures required to achieve due process depends on what’s at stake. This factor — not whether alleged misconduct is sex-based — should be key in determining what kind of safeguards against unjust punishment a student is afforded. Case law in recent years has affirmed that where students’ educational careers may be derailed, robust safeguards like those now required by Title IX regulations are integral to a fundamentally fair process. And, of course, it would be just as reasonable to suspend or expel a student for creating a hostile environment based on race or for assaulting another student in a non-sexual context as it would be to suspend or expel them for sexual misconduct.

To help ensure all students facing serious punishments are guaranteed fundamentally fair hearings, FIRE has written a template letter students can send to their college or university asking it to provide students accused of non-Title IX misconduct the same safeguards students are entitled to receive under Title IX regulations. Whether schools choose to adopt FIRE’s Model Code of Student Conduct or simply make their new, regulations-compliant sexual misconduct procedures applicable in all cases where students face long-term suspension or expulsion, improving the process is an essential step towards protecting student rights.

As always, students, faculty, or administrators with questions shouldn’t hesitate to email us at dueprocess@thefire.org.

Here is our template letter:

Dear President [Name]:

As an institution bound by Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, [Institution] must abide by the Department of Education’s new Title IX regulations, which took effect August 14. The regulations require that schools like [Institution] guarantee students several important procedural safeguards in disciplinary proceedings prompted by allegations of sexual misconduct to ensure students have a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Yet at present, [Institution] does not provide all of these safeguards in non-Title IX cases. I am writing to ask [Institution] to provide these safeguards to students in disciplinary proceedings for all cases where students face long-term suspension or expulsion. Where the stakes are high, the principles of due process and fundamental fairness require procedures tailored to help fact-finders arrive at accurate conclusions — whether the allegations are of sexual misconduct or non-sexual misconduct.

Among other elements, the Title IX regulations require schools to guarantee presumption of innocence, sufficient notice of charges, sufficient time with evidence to prepare for a hearing, impartial fact-finders, and live hearings with an opportunity to question witnesses. These safeguards help ensure that complaints of sexual misconduct will be taken seriously while all students accused of sexual misconduct are afforded a fundamentally fair process before being subjected to potential discipline. But just as allegations of sexual misconduct must be handled with care and integrity, so too should allegations of other types of serious misconduct.

To assist institutions with this goal, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has crafted a comprehensive “Model Code of Student Conduct.” FIRE’s Model Code includes definitions of key terms, an explanation of the institution’s jurisdiction, prohibited conduct, and disciplinary procedures that incorporate—into both sexual misconduct cases and non-sexual misconduct cases—the procedural safeguards mandated by the new Title IX regulations. The full Model Code is available on FIRE’s website at www.thefire.org/modelcode, and you can send questions to FIRE at dueprocess@thefire.org.

[Institution] can also better protect student rights simply by making its new, regulations-compliant sexual misconduct procedures applicable in all cases where students face long-term suspension or expulsion. Students should be granted the safeguards required by the new Title IX regulations not because the allegations relate to sexual misconduct, but because the potential sanctions can be life-changing. To deny students in serious non-sexual misconduct cases those same safeguards, therefore, is unjustifiable and unfair.

Incorporating the important protections listed above into our student conduct procedures for all cases where students face serious punishments would establish our institution as a leader in protecting the rights of all students and the integrity of our hearing processes. I hope to see [Institution] take this step to make all serious disciplinary proceedings fair.

Sincerely,

[Student]

Source: https://www.thefire.org/students-accused-of-non-title-ix-misconduct-should-get-fair-hearings-too/

Campus Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX Title IX Equity Project

Biden is President-Elect. Can We Just Ignore the Title IX Regulations Now?

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date November 11, 2020

November 9, 2020

TNG Consulting and Brett Sokolow

It has been a week! We now know that Joe Biden is the President-Elect of the United States of America. There will still be some legal wrangling, and nothing is set in stone until the electors vote in December. But, assuming this outcome is maintained, you’ll likely be able to ignore Executive Order 13950 (“Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping”). But, what about the Title IX Regulations?

You’ve always had the option to ignore them. The question is whether you’re willing to accept the consequences of that decision. If so, compliance is a choice. If not, you need to comply. So, to make an informed decision, you need to know what the consequences are.

In just 70 days (plus or minus) there will be a new administration. The Office for Civil Rights needs to be directed to come after you for failing to comply with the regulations, and their new Biden-appointed supervisors aren’t likely to do that. Even if OCR were to enforce, you could drag it out and appeal. There is no way for OCR to issue a 305 notice of adverse enforcement action within 70 days, and even then that would have to be referred to the courts, so you’re probably pretty safe on that front.

The problem is the courts. Deprive respondents of their regs-based rights, and they will sue. Trump-appointed judges and others who value due process over victim’s rights will use the regulations as the basis of enforcement through litigation, though exactly how that will work remains to be tested. Do you want to be the test case? Maybe you’ll face a TRO. It’s temporary. Could President Biden’s ED act to rescind the regulations before a permanent injunction would be implemented? That would stop judges from enforcing the regs. Litigating to trial could take two years. By that time, Biden’s administration will have acted to at least rescind the regs, if not replace them, right? That would moot the lawsuit. So, you have to decide whether fending off some lawsuits is a reasonable price to pay for liberating your campus or school from the regulations.

Of course, President Biden won’t rescind the regs personally. That will be done by the Secretary of Education. How long will it take the Biden transition team to vet and select a nominee for Secretary of Education? How long might it be until a Secretary of Education is in place (must be confirmed by the Senate), builds a new team, and works through his/her/their priorities until Title IX hits the top of the list? It could be a year. ATIXA expects many colleges and schools will maintain their compliance with the regulations until then, but we also expect some loosening over time, as signals are issued from the Biden administration and the Department of Education about how they’re going to play this. What will change?

An informal poll of the ATIXA Title IX experts came up with these top ten targets:

Relief from direct cross examination by an advisor (cross-examination is not going anywhere, but we expect a lessening of the rigid regs requirements)
Removal of the nonsensical exclusionary/hearsay rule regarding “statements”
Revocation of the confusing rules on relevance v. directly related evidence
Two ten-day review periods likely collapsed into one period
Formal complaint requirement will be reversed
Hearing requirements for at-will employees will be limited
Hearings will only be required when some form of separation is on the table, and the definition of hearing will be broader and less formal
Mandated dismissal of Title IX complaints removed
Broad retaliation protections rolled back, especially as applied to respondents
Removal of any necessity for two processes

We do expect there will be some legal counsels who evaluate the risk and advise their schools and districts to move away from the regs to a best practices model (ATIXA’s Process B?) immediately. We can’t and won’t advise you to do so yet (and some circuit courts of appeals won’t allow it), and we don’t advise you to ignore the regs without first consulting your attorneys. Doing the right thing by implementing a best practice model may wind up being a very defensible position going forward. ATIXA will have its eyes on ways to effectively balance the rights of complainants and respondents, and how we can help you to do so as the rules for Title IX likely shift again in the coming years.

If we had to prognosticate, we’d guess that fairly early on, the Biden administration will rescind the 2020 regulations, and implement another new Dear Colleague Letter/Q&A style approach, like what ED did in 2017, to fill the gap. Simultaneously or soon thereafter, ED will announce a process to issue new regulations under the APA (which will then take 1 year to 18 months). The DCL won’t bring back 2011 but will likely use a framework that modifies the current regulations per our above laundry list. This is the mostly likely scenario, but don’t write off a Title IX Restoration Act in Congress, especially if the Senate goes blue after the Georgia runoff elections in January.

Source: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/biden-is-president-elect-can-we-just-63134/

Campus Due Process Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Barrett Confirmation is a Win for Due Process on Campus

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date November 10, 2020

Barrett Confirmation is a Win for Due Process on Campus

By Edward Bartlett

In her swearing-in ceremony, new Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett pledged “to do my job without any fear or favor, and that I will do so independently of both the political branches and of my own preferences.” While many speculate on how the tenure of the 115th justice will impact the court, one thing is a near certainty – it is a win for due process and ending sex discrimination on university campuses.

For nearly a decade, college administrators have interpreted Title IX in a way that allowed them to discriminate against students based on sex by offering, among other things, sex-specific STEM courses, leadership development programs, and scholarships. Additionally, universities have used Title IX to railroad students who have been accused—not convicted—of harassment or sexual assault. Thankfully, the U.S. Department of Education released regulations earlier this year that protect students from these types of discriminatory practices.

On this topic, Barrett has shown herself to be a fair jurist—an originalist who interprets the law as it is written not as she wishes it was. And the law is clear when it comes to Title IX—discrimination based on a student’s sex is prohibited.

At her announcement ceremony in the White House Rose Garden, Barrett made it clear that she doesn’t care who a person is when considering a case but what the law says. Barrett stated she would, “administer justice without respect to persons,” which is exactly what’s missing on today’s college campus where an entire sex is shut out of classes and a mere accusation is enough for expulsion.

When one sex discrimination case, Doe v. Perdue University, was put before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, Judge Barrett wrote the panel’s opinion after they revived the student’s right to due process.

The student, referred to as John Doe, was accused of sexual misconduct, which he denied. He was suspended, discharged from the school’s ROTC program, and stripped of his ROTC-related scholarship, even though he was not allowed to call witnesses or defend himself in any meaningful way.

Barrett wrote, “Purdue’s process fell short of what even a high school must provide to a student facing a days-long suspension . . . John received notice of Jane’s allegations and denied them, but Purdue did not disclose its evidence to John. And withholding the evidence on which it relied in adjudicating his guilt was itself sufficient to render the process fundamentally unfair.”

This may seem like an isolated incident that’s the result of an overzealous administration with an ax to grind. But I assure you, this type of sex discrimination is happening to male students all over the country despite the recent changes to Title IX.

Judge Barrett isn’t the only well-known judge with experience in sex discrimination. Almost half a century ago, the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the judge Barrett is set to replace on the country’s highest court, made waves when she represented Charles Mortiz in Mortiz v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue after he was denied a tax deduction for expenses related to the care of his invalid mother. Only women and previously married men were allowed the deduction, so Mortiz, a lifelong bachelor, was denied it due to his sex. Thanks to Ginsburg, that discriminatory decision was eventually overturned.

While Justice Ginsburg never ruled on a Title IX case related to campus sexual assault, she did comment on the issue in 2018, stating, “there’s been criticism of some college codes of conduct for not giving the accused person a fair opportunity to be heard, and that’s one of the basic tenets of our system, as you know, everyone deserves a fair hearing,” and that, “the person who is accused has a right to defend herself or himself.”

I agree with Justice Ginsburg and believe that clarity on sex discrimination will help set the tone when it comes to Title IX compliance. Which is one very important reason to celebrate Justice Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Campus Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

N.Y. and Ed Dept. Dismiss Title IX Rule Lawsuit

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date November 6, 2020

By Greta Anderson

November 5, 2020

The State of New York and the U.S. Department of Education agreed Tuesday to dismiss the state’s lawsuit against the department and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. The lawsuit, filed in June by state officials and the Board of Education for the New York City school district, challenged the Trump administration’s new rules for how colleges and universities respond to campus sexual assault and harassment.

The lawsuit is the second to be dismissed of four lawsuits that were brought against the department due to the new rules, which were issued in May under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the law prohibiting sex discrimination at federally funded institutions. Last month, a judge for the district court in the District of Columbia dismissed a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of advocacy organizations for survivors of sexual assault.

The State of New York’s lawsuit, however, was voluntarily dismissed, according to court documents filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Both the state and the Department of Education agreed that Tuesday’s dismissal would not prevent the state or its institutions “from asserting the invalidity” of the Title IX regulations if New York schools are sued for sexual assault or harassment-related claims, the agreement said.

As of Nov. 4, there are two remaining lawsuits that challenge the legality of the Title IX regulations. One lawsuit filed by the National Women’s Law Center and other legal advocacy groups is scheduled to go to trial starting Nov. 12 in United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Arguments in another lawsuit, which 18 attorneys general are backing, are scheduled to stretch into 2021, according to court documents.

Source: https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2020/11/05/ny-and-ed-dept-dismiss-title-ix-rule-lawsuit#:~:text=The%20State%20of%20New%20York,Secretary%20of%20Education%20Betsy%20DeVos.&text=Arguments%20in%20another%20lawsuit%2C%20which,2021%2C%20according%20to%20court%20documents

Campus Office for Civil Rights Sex Stereotyping Title IX Title IX Equity Project Victims

PR: Hinting at Sex Bias, Federal Judge Slaps Down RPI for Circumventing New Title IX Regulation

Post author By saveadmin
Post date October 25, 2020

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Hinting at Sex Bias, Federal Judge Slaps Down RPI for Circumventing New Title IX Regulation

WASHINGTON / October 26, 2020 – A federal judge has ruled against Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute for utilizing its old Title IX policy for a case that was adjudicated after the August 14 effective date of the new regulation. The decision is widely seen as a rebuke to RPI, both because it reversed a decision by college administrators, and because of the strong language used in the opinion (1).

In this case, John Doe and Jane Roe had a sexual encounter while under the strong influence of alcohol. Echoing the familiar he-said, she-said pattern, Doe alleged that Roe pressured him to put his hands around her neck and engage in unprotected sex. In contrast, Roe claimed that his hands were placed on her neck in a non-sexual way, and that the sexual activity was non-consensual.

Doe and Roe filed Title IX complaints against each other with school officials.

During the campus adjudication, RPI applied different standards against the two parties, deciding that “Doe’s complaint against Roe was insufficiently substantiated because he failed to prove that he did not voluntarily consume alcohol and did not initiate sexual contact with Roe.” As a result, the college made a determination in favor of Roe.

Doe then filed a lawsuit in the New York Northern District Court. In his October 16 ruling, Judge David Hurd suggested that sex bias was at work: “[T]he female’s complaint proceeded without issue, the male’s was struck down in part on grounds not contemplated anywhere in the policy’s definition of consent. That inequitable treatment provides not inconsiderable evidence that gender was a motivating factor in RPI’s treatment of Doe.”

Relying on unusually strong language, the court commented that “whatever answer may come to the question of how to secure the rights of an accusing woman and an accused man, that answer cannot be that all men are guilty. Neither can it be that all women are victims.” Doe had presented strong evidence that “RPI has come down on the opposite side of that truth,” the court concluded.

Sex discrimination against male students appears to be widespread on college campuses. Recently, George Washington University ordered 23 student groups to amend their constitutions to comply with the school’s nondiscrimination policy. These groups include Girls Who Code, Queens Movement, and female-only service groups (2).

Other forms of sex discrimination include female-only services (3), female-specific scholarships (4), one-sided gender studies courses (5), and sex stereotyping (6).

This appears to be the first judicial ruling regarding the applicability of the new Title IX regulation. Judge Hurd’s decision can be viewed online (7).

Links:

Law & Justice Legal Title IX

Federal judge rejects ACLU-backed lawsuit against Title IX rule

Post author By saveadmin
Post date October 22, 2020

by Jeremy Bauer-Wolf, @jbeowulf

October 21, 2020

Dive Brief:

A federal judge Tuesday dismissed an American Civil Liberties Union-backed lawsuit that sought to void the U.S. Department of Education’s contentious new rule governing campus sexual violence.
The ACLU filed it on behalf of four activist groups in May, arguing certain provisions of the Title IX regulation, such as no longer looking into certain off-campus cases, were unlawful.
This is the latest defeat in a string of legal challenges against the rule, suggesting it will likely remain in effect for some time.

Dive Insight:

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ new rule directing how colleges should investigate and potentially punish campus sexual assault went into effect in August.

The changes represent a significant shift from the Obama administration’s position on Title IX, the federal law barring sex discrimination in education. Its guidance is credited with bolstering survivor protections.

DeVos’ rule narrows the definition of sexual harassment, and it reduces the number of cases colleges would need to investigate. It also creates a quasi-judicial system for reviewing allegations, in which both parties, through a surrogate, can cross-examine the other.

Survivor advocacy groups, as well as Democratic attorneys general, sued shortly after DeVos issued the final rule in May. None have succeeded in blocking the regulation so far.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Bennett, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, threw out the ACLU-led case Tuesday, writing that the organizations lacked standing to sue. One of them, Know Your IX, can file an amended complaint, however.

The groups argued the rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the process by which government agencies issue regulation. And they said it undermined the intent of Title IX and created burdens for colleges to comply.

Bennett wrote that Know Your IX, specifically, didn’t prove the rule was reducing student reports of sexual violence. In a previous court case against the department’s Title IX policies, Bennett wrote, the plaintiff was able to show a decrease in student complaints.

Know Your IX also didn’t demonstrate the rule resulted in more work for the organization, as it alleged. The group said in court filings it received a “spike in training requests” for spring 2020 and believed it would see more, but Bennett wrote this was speculative.

Know Your IX tweeted Wednesday it was disappointed with the decision and would discuss next steps with its counsel.

https://www.educationdive.com/news/federal-judge-rejects-aclu-backed-lawsuit-against-title-ix-rule/587482/

Campus Department of Education Discrimination Due Process Executive Order Office for Civil Rights Race Sex Stereotyping Sexual Assault Title IX Title IX Equity Project

PR: Noting the ‘Seriousness of Penalties,’ College Administrators Suspend Trainings that Promote Sex Stereotypes

Post author By saveadmin
Post date October 19, 2020

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Noting the ‘Seriousness of Penalties,’ College Administrators Suspend Trainings that Promote Sex Stereotypes

WASHINGTON / October 19, 2020 – In response to new federal requirements, college administrators have begun to stop school trainings and curricular offerings that promote stereotypes based on sex or race. For example, the University of Iowa recently announced a decision to suspend all such trainings, workshops, and programs. Noting “the seriousness of penalties for non-compliance with the order,” the pause applies to all harassment and discrimination trainings offered by the institution (1). Other institutions of higher education reportedly have made similar decisions (2).

Two federal policies are driving the re-evaluation. First, the new Department of Education sexual harassment regulation states that Title IX training activities “must not rely on sex stereotypes.” (3) Second, Executive Order 13950 directs federal agencies to suspend funding for any institution that promotes concepts that “an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive.” (4)

SAVE is urging administrators at colleges and universities across the country to take immediate steps to end trainings and other activities that may promote sex stereotypes. Title IX and other training programs are known to be promoting sex stereotypes in at least seven ways:

Domestic violence: Each year there are 4.2 million male victims of physical domestic violence, and 3.5 female victims, according to the Centers for Disease Control (5). University training programs need to clearly and accurately state these numbers.
Sexual assault: Nearly identical numbers of men and women are victims of sexual assault, according to the federal National Intimate Partner and Violence Survey. Each year, 1.267 million men report they were “made to sexually penetrate,” compared to 1.270 million women who report they were raped (6). But many university training programs utilize data from surveys relying on methodologies that undercount the number of male victims who were made to penetrate.
Annual vs. lifetime incidence: Due to well-known problems with recall and memory retrieval, lifetime incidence numbers significantly undercount domestic violence and sexual harassment incidents, especially less serious incidents that occurred in previous years. University trainings should use annual, “in the past 12 months” numbers, not “lifetime” numbers.
Sex-specific pronouns: In referring to domestic violence or sexual assault perpetrators and victims, many training materials misleadingly refer to the perpetrator as “he” and the victim as “she.”
Examples: Training materials often provide hypothetical examples to illustrate key concepts. Such examples need to highlight approximately equal number of male and female victims.
Imagery: Some university websites feature domestic violence incidents that portray a threatening male standing over a fearful, often cowering female. Such one-sided portrayals are misleading.
Negative stereotyping of men as a group: Some universities offer campus-wide programs that seek to redefine, reform, and/or stigmatize masculinity. University-sponsored courses that promote theories of “toxic masculinity,” “rape culture,” and “patriarchal privilege” are likely to be in violation of the federal ban on sex stereotyping. Such stereotypes serve to undermine principles of fairness and equity for male students.

For example, the University of Texas offers a program titled “MasculinUT.” The program’s website states that concerns about sexual assault and interpersonal violence justify the “need to engage men in discussions about masculinity as one tool to prevent violence.” (7) The university does not offer a similar program directed at females, thereby creating an unlawful stereotype of male perpetrators and female victims.

Some universities teach courses that feature the American Psychological Association report, “Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men.” (8) The accompanying APA article made the stereotyping claim that “traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful.”

To date, the SAVE Title IX Equity Project has submitted 20 complaints to the federal Office for Civil Rights for non-compliance with regulatory requirements for Title IX training materials (10).

Links:

https://diversity.uiowa.edu/regarding-executive-order-13950?utm
https://blog.aspb.org/policy-update-uneven-implementation-of-executive-order-on-race-and-sex-stereotyping/
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/titleix-regs-unofficial.pdf 45(b)(1)(iii)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-combating-race-sex-stereotyping/
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf Tables 9 and 11.
Lara Stemple and Ilan Meyer. The Sexual Victimization of Men in America: New Data Challenge Old Assumptions. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4062022/
https://deanofstudents.utexas.edu/masculinut.php
https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/01/ce-corner
http://www.saveservices.org/equity/

Discrimination Title IX Title IX Equity Project

Yale SOM under DOE investigation for alleged sex discrimination

Post author By saveadmin
Post date October 16, 2020

Yale University is being investigated by the Office for Civil Rights within the United States Department of Education for allegedly violating Title IX by running women-only programs at the Yale School of Management.

According to a complaint filed by Mark J. Perry, an economics professor at University of Michigan, Flint, the Yale SOM discriminates against men on the basis of sex by excluding them from applying for several executive education programs created solely for women. In an Oct. 13 letter from the DOE obtained by the News, the department’s Boston office for civil rights notified Perry that they would open an investigation into his complaint. University officials said that the University recently received the complaint and declined to comment.

Officials from the DOE confirmed to the News that the OCR opened an investigation into the University on Tuesday for possible discrimination but declined to provide additional information about the case, citing its ongoing status.

“OCR is opening the following legal issues for investigation: Whether the University discriminates against men by excluding them from applying for the (1) ‘Women’s Leadership Program,’ (2) ‘Women’s Leadership Program Live Online,’ (3) ‘Women’s Leadership Program Online’ and (4) ‘Women on Boards’ executive education programs within the University’s School of Management, which are only available to women, in violation of Title IX,” the letter stated.

The letter said since Yale receives federal financial assistance from the Department, the OCR can investigate it pursuant to Title IX, which establishes that “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

SOM spokespeople declined to comment on the school’s use of federal funding.

This is not the first time Yale has come under investigation from the DOE. In February, the department opened an investigation into the University’s alleged failure to report foreign funding.

Perry told the News that he has filed 237 complaints alleging Title IX violations in higher education. He stated that around 100 of his complaints have resulted in civil rights investigations, and, out of those, 30 had resolutions in his favor.

“My goal is to advance civil rights and Title IX for all (and not just some) in higher education expose the systemic sexism that is tolerated and promoted at hundreds of colleges and universities in the US,” Perry wrote in an email to the News.

Perry said that most “sex-specific, single-sex, female-only” programs violate Title IX unless a university offers equivalent male-only programs. He alleges that since Yale SOM excludes men and denies them from these program and their benefits, Yale is discriminating against men based on their sex as they deny men the same educational opportunities offered to women.

There are three ways to resolve Title IX violations for sex-specific programs, Perry told the News. If the OCR finds that SOM’s programs do violate Title IX regulations, SOM will have to discontinue its single-sex programs, open the programs up to all genders or create equivalent male-only programs.

After spending more than 25 years in higher education as a professor, Perry said, he became increasingly aware of what he calls systemic sexism in higher education. Starting around 2016, he claims to have started “a one-man mission to expose what are not just illegal violations of civil rights laws, but are what [he thinks] are violations of basic principles of social justice, fairness and equity.”

“Title IX enforcement has been applied selectively for decades,” Perry wrote, “and it is my goal to end the double-standard for enforcement and protect the civil rights of all students, faculty and staff in higher education, not just some students, faculty and staff.”

A total of 549 men and 399 women enrolled in SOM for the 2019-2020 academic year, according to the University’s Office of Institutional Research.

Julia Brown | julia.k.brown@yale.edu

Julia Bialek | julia.bialek@yale.edu

Campus Scholarships Sex Stereotyping Sexual Harassment Title IX Title IX Equity Project

PR: Recent Central Oklahoma Resolution Agreement Highlights Problem of Widespread Title IX Non-Compliance

Post author By saveadmin
Post date October 13, 2020

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Recent Central Oklahoma Resolution Agreement Highlights Problem of Widespread Title IX Non-Compliance

WASHINGTON / October 13, 2020 – A recent Resolution Agreement between the federal Office for Civil Rights and the University of Central Oklahoma reveals continuing problems with Title IX compliance on college campuses. In this case, the University offered a “Computer Forensics Summer Academy and STEM CareerBuilder for Girls” that stated the program was “unavailable for male students.” The Resolution Agreement was signed by UCO president Patti Neuhold-Ravikumar on September 30 (1).

The UCO Resolution Agreement highlights the problem of widespread sex bias at colleges across the country in the areas of sex-specific programs, female-only scholarships, Title IX regulatory compliance, and sex stereotyping:

Sex-Specific Programs: Professor Mark Perry has filed 231 complaints to date with the Office for Civil Rights alleging Title IX violations, among which the Office for Civil Rights has already opened 80 investigations. His complaints address a broad gamut of sex-specific programs, including female-only STEM academies, leadership development efforts, gym exercise hours, study lounges, and more (1).

Female-Only Scholarships: Over the past two years, the SAVE Title IX Equity Project has identified hundreds of scholarships that are reserved for female students. For example, the University of Missouri-Columbia offers 70 female-specific scholarships, and only one male-specific scholarship. To date, the Office for Civil Rights has opened 121 investigations into these sex-discriminatory scholarships (2). These biased offerings have attracted extensive media attention (3).

Title IX Regulatory Compliance: The new Title IX regulation, which became effective on August 14, was designed to end sex bias against students accused of sexual harassment. One recent review concluded that some colleges have sought to evade the new Title IX requirements, such as cross-examination by an advisor. But at the University of St. Thomas, for example, investigators are instructed to make credibility determinations before the accused student has a meaningful chance to defend himself (4). To date, SAVE has filed OCR complaints against 15 colleges alleging failure to post their Title IX training materials.

Sex Stereotyping: Title IX has long been understood to address the problem of sex-based stereotyping (5). For example, the new Department of Education regulation advises that any Title IX training materials “must not rely on sex stereotypes.” (6)

Many universities offer courses that examine topics such as “patriarchy,” which has been defined as an “unjust social system that subordinates, discriminates or is oppressive to women.” (7) According to one widely used college textbook, patriarchy causes “women everywhere [to] suffer restrictions, oppression and discrimination.” (8) The fashioners of such “unjust social systems” are purported to be males. Such depictions serve to stereotype male students.

Following are examples of such negative stereotypes:

Georgetown University professor Christine Fair recently published a guidebook titled “Wanted: Smash Patriarchy.” The front cover of the book depicts the silhouette of a man (9).
Five University of Massachusetts professors have blamed patriarchy for women’s mental “fragmentation.” (10)
Michael Olenick enrolled in a Women’s Studies course at the University of Minnesota, where he reportedly was lectured on “theories about world conspiracies dedicated to repressing and exploiting women.”

A recent Executive Order authorizes the Department of Education and other federal agencies to suspend funding to any institution that promotes concepts that “an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive.” (11)

College presidents and other administrators need to assure Title IX compliance and to assure curricular offerings avoid sex stereotypes.

Links: